Innocent until proven guilty?

Is this concept really dead now in America? Everybody is guilty unless officially cleared? I don't mean in the court of public opinion either, I mean an actual court of law. 300+ million Americans haven't been cleared of numerous charges today so are we all guilty of all of them? This simple concept goes all the way back to Roman times.

Wiki: Presumption of Innocence

The presumption of innocence is the legal principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty. It was traditionally expressed by the Latin maxim ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (“the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies”).
In many states, presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, and it is an international human right under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11. Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must collect and present compelling evidence to the trier of fact. The trier of fact (a judge or a jury) is thus restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony presented in court. The prosecution must, in most cases prove that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused must be acquitted.
Under the Justinian Codes and English common law, the accused is presumed innocent in criminal proceedings, and in civil proceedings (like breach of contract) both sides must issue proof.

"Trump wasn't exonerated" is such a load of crap. He is presumed innocent unless evidence can be found otherwise. Hell, Hillary did have evidence against her but still hasn't been charged with a crime. The Jussie Smolett case, either he's guilty or the brothers are, or some other unnamed third party. That's why there needs to be an actual trial. Kavanaugh was thought to be guilty by many, but without actual proof he is presumed to be innocent.

Obviously, with decades old crimes, proof is hard to come by. I think that's why the 6th Amendment was put in place. A public and speedy trial is essential to justice because evidence can always be lost and/or fabricated. Especially when the people being tried are in a position of power, but also when the accusers are in that position of power themselves.

Let's lay everything on the table and let the chips fall where they may. If Trump is guilty, lock him up. If Hillary can be proven guilty, lock her up. Hell, if I'm found guilty, lock me up. Nobody should be above the law. Nobody. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." I believe in that very profound statement. We are all equal in the eyes of the law, at least we should be. That is the entire spirit of the founding of our country.

Fantastic post and thank you for bringing perspective to the spectacle we've seen in public legal proceedings as well as those of Congress.

We're dangerously close to creating a system of kangaroo courts. This is why it is so important to understand the 4th through the 8th amendments, as well as how inherent rights and retained rights(9th amendment) work.

I think that innocent until proven guilty is dead now. Now, you are guilty until proven innocent. I do not know how this happened but it did in our society.

If the cops picked me up and asked what I was doing Last week wednescay night between six and nine pm, I would have to tell them "I don't know, am I supposed to remember everything I did every day now?" If I was guilty, I would have an excuse all ready for them for the time and day, I don't know where I was yesterday let alone seven days ago.

a reply to: thov420

I'd agree, except that it is possible for evidence to show someone guilty but for many reasons they are not, or cannot be, tried for the offense.

Legal things like:
- inadmissibility of evidence, despite its incontrovertible and damning nature (like evidence illegally obtained).
- double jeopardy.
- the constitutional danger to an entire county of indicting a sitting President.
- ex post facto law (where the law changes criminalizing or decriminalizing actions).
- no responsibility, like due to insanity.
- nolo contendre in plea bargaining.
- mistrial.
- and a whole swathe of other reasons.

Put simply, someone can be guilty, but can be immune from prosecution. That immunity does not commute innocence to the guilty.

Well, the court of public opinion is a free for all.

a reply to: chr0naut

Star for that post. There can be real legal reasons someone can't be charged with a crime even if they are guilty, although all of your examples are of law enforcement/DA's
overstepping their bounds, except #3 and #5. I don't see any constitutional dangers of indicting any elected official if they have been proven to have committed a crime. Guilty is guilty no matter their perceived or real station in society. The insanity plea is also very controversial and harder to argue. I agree with you in theory though.

originally posted by: thov420
a reply to: chr0naut
Star for that post. There can be real legal reasons someone can't be charged with a crime even if they are guilty, although all of your examples are of law enforcement/DA's
overstepping their bounds, except #3 and #5. I don't see any constitutional dangers of indicting any elected official if they have been proven to have committed a crime. Guilty is guilty no matter their perceived or real station in society. The insanity plea is also very controversial and harder to argue. I agree with you in theory though.

Thank you.

In regard to persuing indictment against a sitting President, this is from the Mueller Report Part II, Page 1:

"The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of "the constitutional separation of powers."

and on Page 2 of Section II:

"The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor's accusation of a crime, even in an internal report, could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President's term, OLC reasoned, "it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment's] secrecy," and if an indictment became public, "[t]he stigma and opprobrium" could imperil the President's ability to govern."6 Although a prosecutor's internal report would not represent a formal public accusation akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report's public disclosure and the absence of a neutral adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining "that the person's conduct constitutes a federal offense." Justice Manual § 9-27.220."

a reply to: chr0naut
If the executive branch(any of them) is
caught operating outside of the law, I would rather they be prosecuted and charged with a crime than allow them to continue because it would be too difficult for the public to handle. Obviously, an accusation means nothing without evidence though. I tried to make that clear in my OP. Of course accusations will affect public opinion and confidence in an elected official, even if unfounded, if repeated often and loudly enough. Look at the state of US politics today.

originally posted by: thov420
a reply to: chr0naut
If the executive branch(any of them) is
caught operating outside of the law, I would rather they be prosecuted and charged with a crime than allow them to continue because it would be too difficult for the public to handle. Obviously, an accusation means nothing without evidence though. I tried to make that clear in my OP. Of course accusations will affect public opinion and confidence in an elected official, even if unfounded, if repeated often and loudly enough. Look at the state of US politics today.

It's an imperfect world and sometimes you have to make compromises.

It is clear that Mueller was saying that he declined to investigate in that direction. Nor would the forces who took control after such an action be likely to be good for the country when the checks and balances are removed.

No doubt things could (but not necessarily would) easily descend into a situation where rule of law and the balance of the separation of powers is pushed aside due to 'emergency measures'. A collapse of the democracy and the republic. Would anyone reasonable take the risk?

The whole basis of the entire OP is wrong.

“Innocent unless proven guilty” has been totally replaced now. The new legal standpoint is “Orange Man Bad”, no matter the fact that he’s FAAAAAAAR better at being president than his racist predecessor.

originally posted by: chr0naut


It is clear that Mueller was saying that he declined to investigate in that direction.

I was under the impression he was looking for Russian collusion
but apparently he was looking for obstruction of justice instead. Who asked for the removal of the checks and balances of government? That's a new one for me.

I'm a believer of "innocent until proven guilty" up until it involves corrupt courts and justice only for some. So I'm of mixed feelings on the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing, since well, we have a clearly corrupt justice system. So I'm just not sure what to do to fix it.

I mean, if the system is corrupt, then you can't rely on using the system to fight it's corruption, so, with the system not working, with people like say, Hillary Clinton, then you're stuck saying, screw the system, and judging her on your own, and doing everything you can to fight her success outside of the courts, since the courts are too corrupt to deal with her.

I mean what are we supposed to do when a clearly corrupt legal system lets someone who committed clear crimes that any other person would go to jail for, that are clear as day, go without so much as a slap on the wrist?

Are we supposed to just say: "Welp our broken justice system said they're innocent of wrongdoing, let's forget anything happened"

or

Are we allowed to say: "# that #, our system is broken, the bitch is clearly guilty, and I'm not going to let this fly at least where I'm standing"

At what point is it acceptable to use one's own judgement? Corruption, even of the justice system, are very real things, and relying 100% on what a justice system decides who is and who is not guilty is just as bad as, and potentially worse than relying 100% on public opinion. Both can be wrong or right, and giving either one hundred percent reign over your beliefs on justice is dangerous.

There are some crimes that due to our broken justice system can only be punished through overwhelming public opinion and it's ability to deal it out.

At the same times, public opinion more often than not tends to punish things that either don't deserve punishment, or destroy lives over minor offenses.

There are also crimes our justice system still handles well and it should be respected, especially when it gives fair rulings and just punishments.

At the same time, our justice system tends to protect those with the right influence, power, or simply ability to afford a high priced lawyer, often allowing these people to get away with clear crimes with no charge at all or even a slap on the wrist, while others without such protections can have their life ruined for minor offenses. It also can, like public opinion, punish things that shouldn't be considered crimes in the first place, destroying whole lives over nonsense.

Point being, there's nothing simple and clear cut when it comes to justice. I wish it was so simple as "innocent until proven guilty" unfortunately that requires a non corrupt, fair, and impartial justice system, with judges that have the good judgement and sense to apply laws in a reasonable and fair manner.

Public opinion should never be necessary to meet out justice, it's flawed and broken, and so often wrong and dangerous. It only becomes necessary when justice fails completely...

I dunno what to do, this whole topic depresses me greatly... I want so much to say, "Yeah innocent until proven guilty!!!" but I just can't anymore... Our system has clearly shown it's corruption to me time and time again... yet at the same time I've seen lives destroyed by public opinion for reasons that are likewise clearly wrong or complete bull#... This whole topic really hammers in how hopeless things seem to be. Damned if you trust in the justice system, and damned if you trust public opinion, and unable to meet out justice yourself as that just makes you judge, jury and executioner, which is a whole another sort of just plain bad...

Best I can do is use my own judgement, and control myself and my actions involving the guilt or innocents of an individual to the best of my ability, so long as I do not in doing so, break the law. If that means not voting for a person, or supporting anything they try to accomplish, or eating at their establishment, or buying their products, or boycotting their business, then I think that's fair, regardless of whether a corrupt court finds them innocent, or whether public opinion thinks they are the second coming. I also thinks it's fair to not treat someone like #, and to associate with someone, or to support someone even if a corrupt system thinks they deserved to be incarcerated for bull#, or public opinion has deemed them the anti-crist or hitler for dumb #ing reasons.

In the end though, does nothing to fix the broken justice system, or the ridiculousness absurdity that is the fickleness and insanity of public opinion.

That said, on Trump, my judgement is that, nothing he's done involving the collusion/obstruction nonsense seems to worthy of any notable action, unlike Hillary and her clear destruction of actual physical evidence. That's my personal judgement, however.

On the campaign trail did trump not say "lock her up"? and get his followers to chant the same thing? Yet not convicted of any crime.

How many on this site feel Hillary should be locked up? yet convicted of 0 crimes???

originally posted by: tinner07
On the campaign trail did trump not say "lock her up"? and get his followers to chant the same thing? Yet not convicted of any crime.

How many on this site feel Hillary should be locked up? yet convicted of 0 crimes???

I hold out hope that at lest one democrat will show that they aren't blinded by partisan stupidity, but it isn't looking good. Do you recall James Comey doing a press conference and listing Hillary's crimes in order of severity, then saying they chose not to prosecute her since she didn't "intend" to be bad? It was shown all over, and I could link it to you if needed, but that would really make you look daft to need that reminder.

She broke our laws, the laws she broke have sent others of lesser importance to jail for years. In fact, much less in severity have sent men to jail for years. So to play stupid and pretend that you just don't know what "lock her up" pertained to, isn't something to be proud of, it's something you should hide from.

originally posted by: tinner07
On the campaign trail did trump not say "lock her up"? and get his followers to chant the same thing? Yet not convicted of any crime.

How many on this site feel Hillary should be locked up? yet convicted of 0 crimes???

Think about the indictments that did come from the Mueller investigation
Most were , at least at one point, connected to the Clintons and/or Soetoro

a reply to: Puppylove

Very well said.

a reply to: tinner07

As Network Dude and I both said, she did commit crimes. She should be put on trial and if convicted, locked up.

originally posted by: thov420

originally posted by: chr0naut


It is clear that Mueller was saying that he declined to investigate in that direction.

I was under the impression he was looking for Russian collusion
but apparently he was looking for obstruction of justice instead. Who asked for the removal of the checks and balances of government? That's a new one for me.

The separation of powers means that there's an Executive branch, a Judiciary branch and a Legislative branch. They all have power of veto, of a kind, over the actions any of the other branches and so they maintain a Constitutionally assured balance that protects the rights and freedoms of citizens.

If one of those branches knocks out another of those branches, it breaks those constitutional rules and opens a chink in the armor, so to speak. The balance can go away and the citizenry is the ultimate looser.

Not that it will go away, but it can.

There are structures such as impeachment where two branches can cooperate to replace the people in the other branch, but the process is necessarily long winded and does not breach the rights (like the right to vote for the administration) of citizens or of the Constitution which is designed to protect those rights.

It is better to accept that 'possibly', someone could have done something wrong in the past, and to let it slide and let the status quo just play out, than to destroy the constitutional balance and what that may imply for the future.

And really, Mueller's initial appointment brief, and his report, was not about 'collusion' at all. Collusion isn't a Federal crime so a Federally appointed Special Counsel would not be pursuing that. What he was investigating, was looking at was any crime directly relating to Russian interference in the 2016 election and specifically around the Trump campaign, where there were some serious alleged, and supposedly evidenced, infractions (not just from the Steele dossier), but from captured spies, intel data, confessions, financial records, e-mails & etc (remember that Trump found out that Trump Tower was under surveillance. In truth, every US citizen is under surveillance but no-one talks about the data that was probably retrieved and is a state secret, only available to the FISA court, the NSA, and to a certain extent, the FBI & Homeland. Remember also that there were several FISA approved raids which captured evidence used in investigation. There must have been justification for the FISA warrant approval).

I don't think anyone can argue that there wasn't Russian attempts to interfere. That was highly evidenced and very well established.

Going into such an investigation also does not mean that those allegations were considered well founded and true. The point and purpose of the investigations is to try and find out.

As near as I can tell, the first use of the word "collusion" was Trump, in a tweet about his innocence and was subsequently used by the acting Attorney General (but I may have the sequence wrong). Collusion was never being investigated because it isn't a crime, whether it occurred or not. If there was any crime in regard to cooperation with the Russians to affect the election outcome, it would be called "conspiracy".

Mueller goes to lengths in his report to explain the invalidity of "collusion" as a charge but it seems that most of the commentators have the word so embedded in their psyche that they gloss over it.

"In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collud[ e ]" was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation's scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law. In connection with that analysis, we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign "coordinat[ ed]"-a term that appears in the appointment order-with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion, "coordination" does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement-tacit or express-between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." - from the Mueller report Part I, Page 2, under the heading: Introduction to Volume 1.

originally posted by: chr0naut

What he was investigating, was looking at was any crime directly relating to Russian interference in the 2016 election and specifically around the Trump campaign...

Why specifically Trump? Obama was POTUS at the time, shouldn't he also have been a target for the investigation? I mean, if they really wanted to make sure Russia didn't interfere, the sitting administration at the time would be the first place I would look.